President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Chris Wright, CEO of fracking company Liberty Energy, to lead the Department of Energy (DOE) has sparked alarm among environmentalists, scientists, and Democratic lawmakers. Wright’s history of denying the severity of climate change, downplaying the risks of fracking, and significant financial ties to the fossil fuel industry raise critical questions about his ability to lead an agency central to energy innovation and climate policy.
Wright has repeatedly cast doubt on the widely recognized impacts of climate change. In a LinkedIn video from last year, he stated, “We have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, or floods despite endless fear-mongering of the media, politicians, and activists.” He went on to claim, “There is no climate crisis.”
During a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Wright reiterated his position, arguing that while greenhouse gas emissions contribute to warming, their effects are overstated. According to his prepared remarks, “Although increased GHG emissions are generally associated with warmer temperatures, there remains significant scientific uncertainty around feedback effects. … But global temperature rise is—by itself—not the concern. In fact, millions of lives have been saved by reducing cold-related deaths.”
These comments stand in stark contrast to the overwhelming scientific consensus. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms that climate change is driving more frequent and severe heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and hurricanes. NASA warns that increased greenhouse gas emissions “will lead to more climate extremes and widespread damaging effects across our planet.”
As head of Liberty Energy, Wright has been a vocal proponent of hydraulic fracturing, a controversial method of extracting oil and gas by injecting rocks with a mix of water, sand, and chemicals. In 2019, he drank fracking fluid on camera to demonstrate its supposed safety, claiming that “the biggest challenge with energy in the world today isn’t toxic chemicals in frac fluid, it’s the fact that so many people around the world don’t have access to energy.”
However, scientific studies have linked fracking to water contamination, earthquakes, and increased cancer risks, particularly among children. These risks disproportionately impact marginalized and low-income communities. Critics argue that Wright’s leadership at the DOE could prioritize fossil fuel expansion over addressing these harms.
Wright’s nomination comes against the backdrop of substantial campaign contributions to Trump and the Republican National Committee (RNC). Over the summer, he donated $175,000 and $53,990 to the Trump 47 joint fundraising committee. Fellow mega-donor Harold Hamm, a billionaire oil and gas magnate, publicly endorsed Wright for the role. Hamm himself contributed $614,000 to the same committee and $200,000 to the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) highlighted these ties in a statement on X (formerly Twitter): “Mega-donor and oil and gas billionaire Harold Hamm hand-picked Chris Wright for Trump’s Energy Department, thanks to boatloads of campaign cash from Hamm’s Big Oil buddies. Probably didn’t hurt that Wright himself gave $$$ to pro-Trump super PACs and the Republican National Committee after Trump solicited a fossil fuel quid pro quo at Mar-a-Lago.”
Whitehouse referred to reports that Trump asked the oil and gas industry for $1 billion in campaign contributions in exchange for tax cuts and deregulation. While no direct quid pro quo was confirmed, the optics of Wright’s appointment raise ethical concerns.
The Department of Energy plays a pivotal role in shaping U.S. energy policy, overseeing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, managing energy diplomacy, and administering loans and grants for energy development. The DOE also oversees the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal and 17 national laboratories.
Wright’s leadership would mark a stark departure from current Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who has championed renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, and electric vehicles. Wright has dismissed such efforts, describing net-zero emissions goals as “sinister” and stating in a keynote speech earlier this year, “Net zero 2050: zero chance of this happening, but it’s actually a sinister goal because we spend an insane amount of money pretending we’re going to actually achieve this.”
Environmental advocates fear that Wright’s tenure could steer the DOE toward increased fossil fuel development at the expense of renewable energy innovation, undermining global efforts to mitigate climate change.
Democratic lawmakers and environmental organizations have condemned Wright’s nomination. Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) described him as a “science-denying, self-serving, sanctimonious fracker who consistently puts the wants of energy producers over the needs of American energy consumers.”
Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, echoed these concerns, stating, “Chris Wright is a climate denier who has profited off of polluting our communities and endangering our health and future. So, of course Donald Trump finds him fit to lead the Department of Energy, where he’ll be hell-bent on abusing his power to prolong the use of deadly fossil fuels and give his corporate polluter executive friends a rubber stamp for the unfettered buildout of LNG exports.”
Though legal experts have noted that campaign contributions from political appointees are not uncommon, they caution that such donations can erode public trust. Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, remarked, “There’s a question about, are they representing the public interest, or are they representing … the oil and gas industry.”
Wright’s nomination to lead the DOE has reignited debates about the intersection of fossil fuel interests, climate denial, and government accountability. Critics argue that his appointment risks setting back decades of progress on renewable energy and climate action. Whether Wright’s confirmation proceeds depends on the Senate, where Republicans are expected to hold a narrow majority.
“When it appears that someone is paying to get access and influence in government, then that’s always going to diminish public trust in government,” warned Virginia Canter.
COMMENTS